City Council Candidate Wonders How 7 Stops Add Up to 19 Charges
By Don Harris
City Council Candidate
RE: "Council Hopeful Faced 19 Charges" story
There were not 19 violations, or even 19 charges. I was stopped for moving violations six times in 12 years. I was stopped a seventh because the sunscreen which I had installed in my windows was too dark.
Under the system at Metropolitan Court at the time, if someone elected to go to court and did not request a hearing right away, the court would send out a failure to appear notice, essentially a summons to come in and request a hearing. I always did that according to the summons, except with regard to one incident. ...
The court never took any additional action as long as people requested hearings within the time requested. Many of the so-called "charges" are those FTA notices. ... This led to "charges" stacking up.
For instance, in a 1993 case in the East Mountains in which I pleaded guilty to speeding (TR2748293), I was charged with not having a driving license in my possession and speeding. I did not request the hearing right away, so I received two FTA notices, which were (as was the established policy) dismissed because I came in and requested a hearing. I showed up at the hearing with my drivers license, so that ticket was dismissed. I view this as one traffic incident, at most two "charges." The Journal counted it as four charges.
In another 1993 case (TR3739493), I was stopped because I took a left turn from a non-left turn lane in the rain, trying to avoid a fire truck coming from behind. The police officer thought I drove carelessly, and Metropolitan Court Judge Frank Gentry agreed. I did not have my insurance card with me, although I did when I went to court.
I was working in Santa Fe, and got permission to attend driver school in Santa Fe. ... The court in Albuquerque did not get proof that I attended in a timely manner, although I did attend as required. Out of this one incident, there are five "charges," two citations, two FTAs and an erroneous failure to attend driving school. Again, I view this as one incident— and at most two "charges." Those two events, amounted to nine of the so-called 19 charges.
In 2001 I had a parking ticket, and I paid it but Metro Court does not always process fines while the warrant or FTA mill is cranking. One screen indicates that I paid the fine in full on time on Nov. 29, ... but another shows that a warrant was issued Dec. 3 and administratively canceled— one hand did not know what the other was doing. Bingo, two more "charges." That's 11.
The only time the court treated my FTA as an actual violation was a ... ticket because my window tinting was too dark (TR5715201). ... The place that did the tinting refused for some time to recognize the error. After eventually getting the problem fixed, I went to court, but I waited too long and the court may have actually issued a warrant.
That is the only time Metro Court has actually fined me for not showing up to court when required. ... For some reason, that is listed as three "charges."
In the last four years, I have received one moving violation, a speeding ticket for going 45 miles per hour on Montgomery. ...
I also had two parking tickets in Metropolitan Court. I am not proud of those, but I do not believe they should have been characterized the way they were by the Journal. For MVD purposes and insurance purposes, my driving record is clear.
(As for campaign reports,) I had no financial activity between Sept. 30 and Oct. 11, during which time two reports were due. ... There is not a perfect match between the election code and the electronic method of campaign reporting. ... Unlike a paper system, it is not possible to file a zero report on the electronic system for the public to see.
On or about Oct. 15, I filed an affidavit with the clerk indicating that I had no recent financial activity. I faxed in a second affidavit this week clarifying that there was no activity between Sept. 30 and Oct. 3. I did neglect to timely file on October 21.
I believe I only failed to file one report, although I was fined for two such failures and for the tardy Oct. 21 filing. I may appeal the fine for the Oct. 3 filing. The statement that I missed three in the article was inaccurate. I am currently in full compliance with the law. ...
opinion 
...go to bookmarks
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
