I have long had the privilege of being involved with educating judges who preside in those lower tier, limited jurisdiction courts that we often refer to as “the people’s courts.” Chief among these so called “people’s courts” are our nation’s traffic courts. My experience with judges who preside in “traffic” is that they are sometimes overlooked when it comes to the specialized education and training needed to address the legal and evidentiary issues that confront them daily. Those who fund judicial education, but who are not themselves experienced judicial educators, may believe that the issues and cases that confront traffic court judges are simple and require little if any training to be competently adjudicated. This misperception may be perpetuated by the fact that in a number of states, traffic court judges work part-time and are not lawyers.

Traffic Courts Address Technologically and Constitutionally Sophisticated Issues
Some equate traffic court with speeding and running red lights and question how much education is really necessary to handle such cases. This perception unfortunately overlooks the reality that traffic court cases routinely involve issues that are technologically complex and involve critical constitutional issues of search and seizure, confession admissibility, and the law of arrest. Those judges who handle impaired driving cases, in particular, are routinely confronted with medically and technologically sophisticated evidentiary issues such as retrograde extrapolation, blood alcohol pharmacology, blood/breath partition ratios, infrared spectrometry, horizontal gaze nystagmus, passive alcohol sensors, and the admissibility of drug recognition experts’ testimony. Even those supposedly simple speeding and red light cases now involve complexities related to electronically monitored intersections, photo radar, laser speed detection, and the myriad of defenses in radar and Vascar enforcement cases.

Traffic Court Judges’ Needs Assessments and the Survey Approach
What kind of judicial education and training do judges who handle motor vehicle cases need? What are the cutting edge issues that confront them? Being a judge who routinely presides in traffic cases and having had the privilege of designing and teaching traffic law courses for the National Judicial College, I have some thoughts on these subjects. First and foremost, to fulfill the education needs of traffic court judges, I believe that one needs to survey the judges who preside in those courts. Rather than asking what they would like to learn about, experienced judicial educators know that the key to curriculum design is to ask, “what are the problems; what are the issues” that confront these judges. The result of such a needs assessment will often yield distinct differences based on the rural versus urban court venues, whether the responding judge is an attorney and whether jury trials are routinely accorded to defendants. Such differences may indicate a need for education program segments that are divided into tracks or that use discussion groups that separate judges according to their jurisdiction or bar status.

What are the Issues, What are the Problems?
When surveying judges who handle motor vehicle cases it is often appropriate to have them rank issues or problems that confront them rather than to require them to describe the issue or problem in their own words. The ranking process would utilize a list of possible or probable issues, or problems from which those surveyed would be asked to select the top 5 or 10 to be designated in order of importance. The ranking process would also provide space for those surveyed to describe and list other issues or problems that they believe are important. The list that follows contains 40 examples of potential problem areas and issues that routinely confront traffic court judges particularly those who handle impaired driving cases.

• How to supervise defendants without a government funded probation service
• How to avoid being reversed by an appellant court
• Designing forms and writing orders and judgments
• Ethical judicial community outreach activities
• The admissibility of Field Sobriety Tests
• Issuing search warrants to draw blood in breath test refusal cases
• New U.S. and state Supreme Court decisions that impact traffic cases
• The judge’s role in plea and sentence bargaining
• Evidence issues including relevancy, admissibility, materiality, judicial notice, and opinion evidence.
• Effective communications and dealing with the media
• Driver license records admissibility and accessibility
• Zero tolerance laws and juvenile traffic offenses
• Sentencing juveniles and dealing with their parents or guardians
• Rural courts and their special issues and needs
• Sentencing impaired drivers effectively
• Handling large dockets efficiently while according due process
• Understanding blood/alcohol pharmacology and toxicology
• Efficient and effective jury management and selection
• Collecting fines and providing for restitution; using collection courts
• The use of contempt when defendants fail to pay fines and costs
• Handling motions regarding the operation and maintenance of breath testing equipment
• The role of the judge and the professional in treating addiction
• Ruling on motions to suppress involving search and seizure issues
• Ruling on motions to suppress involving confessions and admissions
• Ruling on motion to suppress involving the law of arrest
• Admissibility issues with expert witness testimony
• Dealing with law enforcement and lay witnesses who fail to appear
• Conducting trials and sentencing proceedings without a defendant
• Roadblocks and sobriety check points
• Motions to compel and matters related to discovery issues
• Dealing with commercial motor vehicle (CMV) issues and cases
• Probation revocation proceedings and issues
• Identification and other issues in cases involving electronically monitored intersections and photo radar.
• Issues involving the maintenance and testing of speed measurement devices
• The function and appropriateness of ignition interlock devices
• The function, design and implementation of DUI/Drug courts
• Dealing with habitual traffic offenders
• How to deal effectively with the suspended or unlicensed drivers
• Data processing innovations and the paperless court
• Electronic monitoring of defendants on probation

The survey process can also be utilized when education needs are being determined through the use of education committees such as those that often function in conjunction with judges associations or conferences. When curriculum decisions are being made through the use of such committees, it is important that those involved in the survey process be the same judges who routinely preside in the types of cases for which issues and problems are to be identified.

The National Conference of Specialized Court Judges Stands Ready to Help
Once the needs of traffic court judges have been identified it may be helpful and productive to contact the American Bar Association’s National Conference of Specialized Court judges (NCSCJ). This ABA Judicial Administration Division Conference represents our nation’s limited and specialized court judges. It offers traffic court programs and curricula as well as a cadre of nationally recognized presenters to fulfill the education needs of judges who handle motor vehicle cases. The NCSCJ has successfully cooperated with state judicial educators to design and present highly acclaimed traffic court programs in states including: Georgia, Texas, Michigan, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Utah and Washington. Information concerning available assistance and sample curricula can be obtained by contacting Rebecca King, Conference Administrator, ABA Judicial Division, 321 N. Clark ,19th Floor, Chicago, IL 60610, phone: (800) 238-2667 Ext. 5742 e-mail address kingre@staff.abanet.org.

In closing, the education needs of those who labor in the people’s courts are truly special. The National Conference of Specialized Court Judges stands ready to assist members of NASJE in fulfilling those needs.

Judge Karl B. Grube has served as a State Trial Court Judge in the County Court for Pinellas County, Florida since his election to that office in 1976. Prior to assuming the bench, he served as an assistant public defender followed by private practice, which included being city attorney for Redington Beach, Florida. Judge Grube has served as president of the Florida Conference of County Court Judges and as assistant dean of the Florida New Judges College. He was also elected chair of the American Bar Association’s National Conference of Special Court Judges and has been active in the ABA’s Judicial Division, including occupying an elected seat on the ABA's Judicial Council. Judge Grube is a member of the academic faculty of the National Judicial College and the University of Phoenix. He also lectures at the Stetson University College of Law in St. Petersburg, Florida. He has published legal articles through the American Bar Association, the National Judicial College, The Florida Bar Journal, The State Court Journal, Stetson College of Law’s Law Review and the Journal of Law and Technology. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from Elmhurst College, in Illinois, his Juris Doctor degree from Stetson University in Florida, and in 1992 was awarded a Masters Degree in Judicial Studies from the University of Nevada. .

Copyright 1999-2012, National Association of State Judicial Educators
Contact Web Developer