Traffic and driving cases are perhaps the most routine and among the most common interactions that the average person will have with a court proceeding. For that reason, traffic proceedings may become rote and, at times, even casual. But as several articles in this issue illustrate, there are some serious fundamental issues at stake in many of these proceedings that are worth a judge’s close attention.
Every judge is aware of the fundamental ethical requirement to perform judicial duties “competently and diligently” (ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.5(A)). However, it is all too easy to believe that once a judge has obtained a level of competence, that competence is maintained without the corresponding diligence. In this issue, judges are made aware that distracted driving, once associated with an active disturbance or incident, is now commonplace due to the day-to-day bad habits of everyday drivers. The Feldman piece brings to light the seriousness and frequency of these everyday thoughtless behaviors that can have catastrophic consequences. For a judge hearing these matters, the seriousness of the temporary loss of control of a vehicle should remain at the forefront. While a traffic matter with injuries is obviously a serious matter, the role of the judge in educating and informing violators who are fortunate enough to have not caused harm should not be overlooked.
So too, the Osborn article raises unique issues concerning active military service members who may be involved in traffic matters, especially those concerning impaired driving. While many parties in court proceedings face collateral consequences once their matter is adjudicated, members of the military face a host of administrative consequences that will affect their ongoing service. The author emphasizes that knowledge of the many possible consequences can lead the civilian judge to make a more informed and effective judgment in the matter.
When dealing with impaired driving, the science (both behavioral and forensic toxicology) is always developing. Judges must maintain competence when assessing evidence that may include new technologies. So too, as the substances that may cause impaired driving become more diverse, judges must maintain awareness of the limitation of evaluations that were designed solely to evaluate alcohol or controlled substance use.
Finally, judges must be sensitive to jurisdictional limitations and tribal autonomy that may limit information related to offenses occurring in Indian Country. While it may be frustrating for a judge who obviously wants to make the most informed sentencing decision possible in an impaired-driving matter, historical trust and confidence issues provide real barriers to access offenses that did not occur on state land. The Martin piece outlines these very real barriers that will not be easily overcome. Recently, state and local compacts with tribes and Native groups have helped facilitate effective sentencing in these and similar matters. For the judge, being aware of and respecting the autonomous entities are necessary.
As the comment to Rule 2.5 notes, “Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge’s responsibilities of judicial office.” For those handling driving and traffic matters, no less than that is needed in more complex litigation; competence requires ongoing attention, learning, and awareness.
