Keating, Robert B.

English

University of Denver

Denver Law Review Volume 31 Issue 2 Article 3 June 2021 Lawyers Work towards Traffic Court Improvement in Colorado Robert B. Keating Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Robert B. Keating, Lawyers Work towards Traffic Court Improvement in Colorado, 31 Dicta 61 (1954). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. Feb., 1954LAWYERS WORK TOWARDS TRAFFIC COURTIMPROVEMENT IN COLORADOROBERT B. KEATING*of the Denver BarThe United States since the adoption by the American BarAssociation in 1942 of the 57 recommendations for improving traf-fic courts, based on the Warren Report,' has been witnessing agreat "reform" movement relative to the administration of justicethrough the traffic court system. Throughout the country the publicand the lawyers have been demanding improvements in court pro-cedure and general operation of the courts. The increase in theuse of the automobile and the number of people behind the wheelsof the vehicles has necessarily given rise to increased activity inthe traffic court field. The American Bar Association, state andlocal bar associations have been devoting considerable time inworking with the National Safety Council, the Automotive SafetyFoundation and local safety organizations interested in highwaysafety-and traffic court administration. The lawyers through theirassociations have helped to pinpoint the deficiencies existing in.our traffic court system.Colorado has been recognized as one of the forerunners intraffic court improvement and highway safety. The traffic courtcommittee of the Colorado Bar Association can take pride in itswork during the past few years.In 1944 Colorado held one of the earlier state-wide trafficconferences, followed by sectional meetings in each judicial dis-trict in the state except Denver. The Colorado Bar Associationwas one of several sponsors of these conferences. In 1951 Gov-ernor Dan Thornton, with the assured assistance and coopera-tion of the American Bar Association, Colorado Bar Associationand the University of Colorado School of Law and other organ-izations interested in improving highway traffic safety and traf-fic courts, called for a state highway safety conference to beheld in our state and to be known as the Governor's HighwaySafety Conference. A conference of this sort was held in 1951and as a result of this conference twenty-five recommendationsrelative to traffic court improvement were made. In submit-ting these recommendations it was felt that the inaugurationof any one or series of them would help to modernize the ad-ministration of justice through our traffic courts. It was recog-nized that in Colorado we have various types of traffic courts,namely the justice of peace, police magistrates', and municipaltraffic courts and that many of the suggestions were not amenableGeorge Warren on "Traffic Courts" published by National Conference ofJudicial Councils in 1942.* Chairman of Colorado Bar Association Traffic Courts Committee.DICTAFeb., 1954to use under each system. The recommendations of the 1951 con-ference were as follows:1. That corrective punishment should be designed to deterindividual violators and impress the need for voluntary observance.2. That flexible standards within minimum and maximumlimits as opposed to set penalties are recommended.3. That juvenile violators should be tried by traffic courtsexcept where a behavior problem is involved. (The issuance ofa driver's license to a juvenile carries with it the same responsibil-ities as the issuance of a driver's license to any other person.)4. Driver licenses should be suspended or revoked on recom-mendation of the court as an additional penalty.5. That trial judges be permitted to require the surrender ofdriver licenses not only in cases where a mandatory revocationis required but also in all other cases where in the opinion ofthe trial judge it shall serve the public interest to deprive saidperson of his driving privileges and to submit said driver's licenseto the Department of Revenue, and the Department of Revenuehold a hearing as in all other cases of driver license suspensionand revocation and said suspension shall commence upon finalconviction.6. That the courts should use accident records and statisticaldata for the education of violators; and where feasible use trafficschools. Corrective penalties by the court should be made to fitthe individual as well as be adequate for the violation.7. That traffic cases should be tried separately from othercourt business.8. That physical courtroom conditions should be improved inorder to obtain dignity and impressiveness in the surroundings.9. That court costs should be included as a part of the totaljudgment assessed against the violator and that written receiptsshould be delivered upon payment.10. That a law school in the state in cooperation with theAmerican Bar Association and the Traffic Institute of Northwest-ern University conduct a traffic court conference for judges andprosecutors in the immediate future.11. That all Sustices of the Peace be required to attend aconference at the call of the governor at least once in each yearand that the expenses for participation therein be defrayed by theindividual counties.12. That traffic court violation bureaus be organized wher-ever necessary for the purpose of handling parking and standingviolations only.13. That the Penalty Assessment System operated in the Stateof Colorado is unique in the United States and that it should becontinued; steps, however, should be taken to provide increasedpenalties for repeaters.14. That all violators of traffic laws be required to appear inopen court at a stated time and place to answer the violation uponwritten, formal charges.DICTAFeb., 195415. That failure to appear to an original summons or citationby the court or official shall be a separate violation requiring theassessment of additional penalty.16. That in addition thereto that if said failure to appear inanswer to an original summons or citation by the court or officialshall be for more than 30 days that then it shall call for immedi-ate suspension of the driving privileges by the State Motor Ve-hicle Division and that said suspension shall remain in full forceand effect until the violator has appeared in response to the orig-inal summons or citation and that all traffic citations be requiredto contain information of this additional penalty.17. That standards of dignity in the conduct of traffic courtsshould be raised.18. That each traffic charge should be tried separately.19. That prior to receiving and entering the plea of violatorsthat the judge or other court official should read the complaint tothe violator and the judge should state instruction as to the natureof the plea of guilty and plea of not guilty and the penalties thatmay be assessed under the violation charged and also that thedefendant be instructed as to all his legal rights.20. That court room procedure should be uniform through-out the state and that the attorney general be asked to prepareand publish a manual for that purpose; that said manual be deliv-ered at state expense to each traffic court judge now in office andto all newly elected and appointed judges hereinafter appointedand elected and duly qualified.21. That there is need for legislation prohibiting fixing orattempts to fix traffic charges or secure reduction therein and thatadequate penalties be provided for the violation thereof.22. That the defendant's previous traffic record be broughtby the prosecuting official to the attention of the traffic judgeafter the determination of guilt and before judgment or sentence.23. That all courts report all moving traffic violation convic-tions to the State Motor Vehicle Division.24. That the appointment, nomination and election of trafficcourt judges should be based on merit and fitness. That all poli-tical parties be earnestly requested to use more care, where re-quired, in nominating qualified persons for judicial positions.That adequate salary be provided for all judicial officers so thatqualified persons may be willing to serve.25. That qualified judges are needed to handle traffic cases,and all traffic courts, rural and urban, should be supervised on astate-wide basis by the chief justice of the highest appellate courtof the state.One further recommendation was that a state-wide trafficcourt conference be held dealing solely with traffic courts. The1951 conference was not limited to traffic courts but included mat-ters dealing with enforcement, education, engineering and motorDICTAFeb., 1954vehicle administration, as well as ordinances and court adminis-tration.In March of 1952 a Governor's Traffic Court Conference washeld in Denver, Colorado, and was the largest meeting of the kindever to be conducted in any state with the exception of the stateof New Jersey. Working with the Colorado Highway Safety Coun-cil and the University of Colorado School of Law were the Ameri-can Bar Association, Colorado Bar Association, Northwestern Uni-versity Traffic Institute, the State Association of County Com-missioners, the Colorado Municipal League, the State Associationof Sheriffs and Peace Officers, and the State Association of Jus-tices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables and the sevenstate departments represented on the State Highway SafetyCouncil.The activities of the state traffic court conference included ademonstration of a model procedure for traffic courts. From aprepared script, representatives of the participating associationsdramatized the correct procedure, following as nearly as possiblethe twenty-five recommendations submitted by the 1951 confer-ence. It was during this conference that the Colorado State ModelTraffic Ordinance was discussed with those in attendance, result-ing to date in the adoption of the model ordinance by 56 cities inColorado. The conference discussed the question of the properpenalty to be assessed in various violations taking into considera-tion the views of judges, enforcement officers, prosecutors, de-fense attorneys and members of the lay public.It was recognized that all judges, law enforcement officers,attorneys and members of the citizenry interested in traffic courtimprovement could not travel to Denver to attend the conference,so it was recommended that sectional conferences be planned, or-ganized and conducted by representatives of the participating or-ganizations and agencies in various parts of our state.The sectional traffic court conferences were held in Sterling,Colorado, on July 8, 1952, and on eleven subsequent days in othercities of the state geographically situated so that anyone couldparticipate in a traffic court conference without having to travelany great distance. Each sectional conference followed a well de-fined program. Panel discussions were held on current trafficcourt problems in the particular area and on what was being doneto correct similar problems throughout the state, cooperation be-tween the motor vehicle department and local authorities, andthe success of the use of the Model Traffic Ordinance. In all ofthese discussions the experiences and opinions of members ofthe bar were considered and used in formulating plans for .changesand improvements.As a result of many judges attending the conferences theColorado Association of Justices of the Peace, Magistrates andConstables called a conference of its own to analyze the problemsfacing them, taking into consideration all of the problems, deficien-cies and recommendations brought out in the section conferencesDICTAand the governor's conference. The practicability and feasibilityof carrying out the recommendations of all the conferences wasdiscussed in light of the various forms of traffic courts used inColorado. Each judge was able after the meeting to return to hisown county, precinct or city and see if many of the glaring prob-lems could be remedied, with the thought of reporting at the nextmeeting after a certain "trial" period.It was determined that a Governor's Highway Safety Confer-ence would be held every two years, thus giving ample oppor-tunity to try out the recommended changes and giving sufficienttime to re-examine the problems in the particular locale. It wasalso felt that in between the conferences the various associationsshould begin to formulate definite plans and study groups inpreparation for the next conference.The Governor's Highway Safety Conference for 1953 washeld in June in Denver and approximately 800 people registeredincluding lawyers from various parts of the state. Many recom-mendations were made by the various sections and those dealingdirectly with traffic courts were as follows:1. It is recommended that the Model Traffic Ordinance forColorado Municipalities be adopted by the city council or boardof each town, city or mpnicipality in the state of Colorado.2. It is recommended that the Colorado Bar Association andthe Colorado Associations of Justices of the Peace, Magistratesand Constables cooperate in the preparation of a guide leading toa more uniform system in traffic fines and penalties.3. It is recommended that the Colorado State Legislaturerevise and amend the state statutes relating to the justice of thepeace court costs.4. It is recommended that the state statute relating to manda-tory revocations of drivers' licenses be amended to permit thedirector of revenue to exercise his discretion in cases of first finalconviction of driving while under the influence of intoxicatingliquors.5. It is recommended that the tenure of office of the countysheriffs, justices of the peace and constables be changed to fouryears. It is also recommended that the salaries and working con-ditions of county sheriffs, justices of the peace, city police officersand constables be adjusted so as to be commensurate with thoseof business and industry to the end that qualified personnel maybe induced to remain in law enforcement service.6. That consideration be given to delegating to the judiciarythe power of revocation and suspension of operators' and chauf-feurs' licenses of persons convicted of violations of motor vehiclelaws and ordinances.The 1953 Governor's Traffic Court Conference was held inDenver on November 18 and 19. This conference was sponsoredby those who sponsored the original conference in March of 1952.The conference was well attended by enforcement officers, judges,district attorneys and county attorneys. Very few lawyers, though,Feb., 1954 DICTAFeb., 1954participated in the conference, except those representing some lawenforcement agency. One of the most interesting panel discus-sions was the one dealing with the topic "Interrelations betweenTraffic Courts and Enforcement Officers." Representatives of theDenver Police Department, Colorado Bar Association, ColoradoState Patrol, justices of the peace and municipal traffic judgesdiscussed the proper place of the law enforcement officers and theirrelation to the traffic judges.There were other panel discussions dealing with the questionof whether all moving violations should be tried before a judge,or whether the traffic violations method of assessing a penaltyshould continue to be utilized, also another panel on the "ProperPenalty to be Assessed in Traffic Court Cases." James P. Economosof the American Bar Association once again directed a demon-stration of the model traffic procedure to be used in a traffic court.Two national figures in traffic safety and traffic court improve-ment addressed the conference on traffic law enforcement and thecourt's role in the education of the traffic violators. Mr. FranklinM. Kreml, Director of the Traffic Institute of Northwestern Uni-versity, praised the State of Colorado for its excellent traffic lawenforcement and the decrease in the number of accidents andfatalities. Mr. Economos discussed how the traffic judge canserve as an instructor for the people coming before him to answerto charges of violating the traffic laws of the city or the state.Once again this conference passed on several recommendationsas a result of the discussions and addresses presented during thetwo day conference. Among the more important resolutions passedwere the following:1. That a series of regional conferences patterned after theGovernor's Traffic C6urt Conference be held during the summerof 1954 in various parts of the state.2. That serious consideration be given by cities of Coloradoin adopting the Uniform Traffic Ticket and the Model TrafficOrdinance.3. That the statute relating to mandatory revocation ofdriver's license be amended to permit discretion to be exercisedby the State Motor Vehicle Department after considering the rec-ommendation of the judge in cases of first final conviction whiledriving under the influence of intoxicating liquors.4. That traffic violators' schools be established by municipaland justice courts wherever possible.5. That local school boards and their superintendents maketraffic safety education courses compulsory in all secondary schoolsthroughout the State of Colorado.6. That a guide be prepared to assist judges and magistratesto more uniformly assess traffic fines and penalties.7. That the Traffic Court Conference favored legislation bythe General Assembly limiting the jury in the county court appealsfrom municipal courts to passing only on the question of guiltDICTAFeb., 1954or innocence, reserving to the trial judge the imposition of thepenalty in the event of conviction.8. That the fee system of paying justices of the peace beabolished, and that a salary be substituted therefor in an amountcommensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the officeand comparable to the earnings of those in business and industrywho bear like responsibilities.9. That the tenure of office of justices of the peace be fouryears.10. That the state legislature revise and amend the statutesrelating to justice of the peace fees to the end that a flat fee shallremain in all cases of like nature filed in justice courts throughoutthe state.The success of the regional conferences will depend on thenumber of participants and the divergent groups represented. Alllawyers and members of the bar association will be invited toattend and participate. Audience participation is encouraged, andportions of time at the end of each panel will be set aside fordiscussion and questions from the audience. The lawyers of thestate can be of great service to their community and to their pro-fession by attending these regional conferences and giving thosein attendance the benefit of their experience and knowledge. Eachattorney has an obligation to attend the conference and help bringabout the needed changes in our traffic court system. The lawyerknows best of all what improvements must be made, particularlythe lawyer who practices in and around his own community, forit is the attorney, who in trying to represent his client meets thedeficiencies and laxities which detract from the successful admin-istration of justice through the traffic courts of our state. Thegeneral public, the law enforcement agencies, the judges and theattorneys of this state cannot help but prosper from these con-ferences.THE JOLLY TESTATOR WHO MAKES HIS OWN WILLYe lawyers who live upon litigants' fees,And who need a good many to live at your ease;Grave or gay, wise or witty, whate'er your degree,Plain stuff or State's Counsel, take counsel of me:When a festive occasion your spirit unbends,You should never forget the profession's best friends;So we'll send round the wine, and a light bumper fillTo the jolly testator who makes his own will.-Lord Neaves (c. 1865)DICTA

Lawyers Work towards Traffic Court Improvement in Colorado

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4518&context=dlr

Lawyers Work towards Traffic Court Improvement in Colorado

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver