• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_node_status::operator_form() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::operator_form(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/modules/node/views_handler_filter_node_status.inc on line 0.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/glencoenews/www/www/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.

In court, the accuser almost always wins

I’m a law-and-order guy. I’ve always told my children that if they ever had to go to court, they are innocent until proven guilty. It’s in our U.S. Constitution.
A McLeod County District Court judge recently said the same thing when my son opted to fight two alleged traffic violations. If you think the words of the U.S. Constitution mean what they say, then you’re a darn fool.
It all boils down to who do you believe — the accused or the accuser. The accuser, with the full weight of law enforcement and the backing of the courts, will win nearly every time. Innocence has nothing to do with it.
My son was accused of having a loud muffler and using excessive speed by a Glencoe Police officer after he entered Highway 212 heading east off Morningside Avenue. It is the latest in a long line of ticky-tack moving violations that Glencoe Police love to hand out like candy. It seems to appease their machismo attitude that somehow they are guarding the public’s safety, and the tickets prove they are doing their jobs.
Well, it may not be having the desired effect. Instead, it gives Glencoe PD a reputation, perceived or otherwise, especially among younger drivers, that law enforcement is more about handing out harassing seatbelt, speeding and deficient equipment tickets than about actually preventing or solving crimes.
Moving violation tickets are like low-hanging fruit. It’s easy pickings and lucrative. It also increases the coffers of city, county and state offices that share in the large fines of moving violation convictions. In other words, it supplements budgets.
And if you want to fight the accusations, be prepared to pay more in the end, especially if you lose.
To my son, there was a principle involved. He claims he was not guilty. He was not about to admit to something he did not do.
So into court he went, hopes high, facing off with an assistant county attorney.
The assistant county attorney, in his examination of the police officer, found the officer had not tested the violating muffler for illegal decibel levels; found that the alleged rapid acceleration did not leave tire marks at the Morningside-Highway 212 intersection; and the traffic stop the officer said occurred in Glencoe, actually occurred closer to County Road 1.
That, in most people’s opinion, would have cast a reasonable doubt on the officer’s allegations. If for no other reason than he did not follow proper procedure to have the muffler’s decibel level tested in order to present solid evidence. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the officer … and he had only his subjective opinion, and no physical evidence, to stand on.
The officer’s testimony literally was his word against the accused driver. How often does this happen?
Which brings us full circle. Why fight a traffic ticket when you automatically lose before you get there? That’s what the system is banking on. Whether you are guilty or not, you lose, so pay your fine before going to court, which costs you even more.
So what happened to my son‘s case? He was found guilty, but was not levied a fine. However, he had to pay the $85 for the audacity to even bring his case to court.
That left us scratching our heads. If he was guilty, why not the fine? Perhaps the judge saw the flaws in the police officer’s testimony, but was not about make him look like a fool by siding with the accused. That’s justice? No, that’s politics.
Instead of justice, my son now has two more violations on his driving record. He can appeal the judge’s odd verdict, but beware, that will add to the court costs. Even an addicted poker player knows when to fold.
What a country! What a judicial system! What a crock of hooey!
Rich Glennie was the editor of The Chronicle for 23 years. He retired Aug. 1, 2014, but still plans to submit an occasional column.