Chicago's cell phone ticket

Gus Philpott
Woodstock Advocate
November 10, 2010

Recently a friend got a ticket in Chicago for talking on a handheld cell phone while driving. The fact that she only answered the phone and immediately put it on Speakerphone didn't matter to the cop who stopped her. He saw the phone by her ear, and that was that. In fact, that male cop got so mad writing the ticket that his female partner got out of the patrol car and told him to let her finish the ticket.

She went to Chicago's Administrative Hearing Court yesterday (what we in Woodstock call the Administrative Adjudication (AA) Court) to plead her case, and an Assistant City Attorney (ACA)talked her into pleading "Liable" (that's the term in Adjudication Court, not Guilty). He told he that nobody beats cellphone tickets and that the cop didn't even have to be there to testify against her. And that second part correct, as it is in Woodstock. The AA Court judge assumes that the cop would testify that the defendant violated the law (otherwise, why would he have written the ticket?) and doesn't require the cop to stand up, raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth.

But the first part - that nobody beats a ticket in AA Court - is not correct.

When she complained about the extra $40 appearance fee (court cost), increasing the total cost to $140, the ACA offered her a "deal": pay $20 and do a day of community service. As an aside, he mentioned that the charge would be amended to Disorderly Conduct "for paperwork purposes." In the noise and confusion of the court, she focused on saving $120 and didn't understand the Disorderly Conduct part.

When we talked about it last night, I told her what I thought that really meant. I suggested she go back to court today and attempt to get the whole thing unwound and start over.

She ran into all sorts of flack at the court building today and people who said "You can't do that"; i.e., you can't get yesterday's decision vacated. Well, she, with the help of a senior person in the building this morning, is making it happen. She'll go back before a judge later this morning.

The first moral of the story is to fully understand that the City's attorney is not your attorney. He is on the other side. It is "you vs. them." And you had better understand exactly what the effect of accepting a "deal" is. Don't get in a hurry. Ask questions. The City Attorney, because he is not your attorney, may not answer them. Let that be a red flag.

In Woodstock's Admin. Adjud. Court, Judge Eterno makes it perfectly clear to the defendants that the City's attorney is not their attorney. He explains it clearly and unhurriedly.

People often go to court without lawyers because they think they cannot afford a lawyer. But, in the end, the cost of going without a lawyer may be much higher!

Just imagine having a disorderly conduct conviction on your record and having it spoil a career or a job application or a contract for services.

Yes, she could have just coughed up the $100 for the ticket and never gone to court. What she didn't know is that Chicago would tack on the extra $40 for the minute in front of the judge. I explained about negotiated pleas and amended charges. All in layman's terms, of course, since I am not a lawyer.

And the result in today's court in Chicago. She might even be found Not Liable. More later.