1 of 6

Write now Article Tools

Some years ago I was driving east on Route 20A in western New York. I didn't think I was speeding, but I was pulled over by a sheriff's deputy who said I was going 45 miles per hour in a 30 mile-per-hour zone in Leicester (pronounced "Lester"), NY. Thirty-five? Yes, I told myself; maybe I was going 35, but not 40, and certainly not 45. So what to do?

I hired a lawyer from the nearby town of Mt. Morris, NY. Mr. Smith, we'll call him, told me there were ways of fighting allegations-and a traffic ticket is just that, an allegation-by the police. To make a long story short, he requested, but never received, a statement from the officer stating where she was stationed when she saw me go by and a document stating when the radar gun she was using was last calibrated. Because the officer never responded, the town prosecutor declined to prosecute and advised the judge to fine me nothing, which is what he did.

Before the above happened, I had the same casual prejudices many Americans have toward lawyers. I thought that, by and large, they were amoral individuals who bent and manipulated the law and that we'd be better off without them. Or at least as many of them as we have. Now I think differently; now I believe lawyers are necessary buffers between the people and their government. In other words, we need them if we are to remain free and in control of our monies and our lives.

Consider what a fix I would have been in in Leicester, NY, had I not had a lawyer-an advocate working on my behalf. I would have been in a town in which I knew no one, in an unprotected position against a local DA and a local judge, neither of whom I could vote out of office. At the end of it all I almost certainly would have had to give up some of my money, but would I have had due process-full due process-had I not hired an advocate who knew how the court system in that particular municipality worked?

I think not, for I had no idea I could request documentation from the officer who wrote the ticket, nor did I know I could ask for a statement from her. Maybe the DA would have told me I could do these things when I met with him before I had to appear before the judge, or maybe he would not have. Most likely I think he would have asked himself, "Why take a chance that this thing could go on for another month? Why not offer the man a deal?" Because I'd run no one over and damaged no property, and because I'd stated emphatically that I was not guilty of speeding, I think the prosecutor was prepared to offer me the following deal: go to trial or plead guilty to a lesser charge-a less serious moving violation or a parking ticket-and surrender 75 or 100 of my dollars instead of 150 of them.

Fair enough? Wrong question. Better to ask if a police officer, a DA, and a judge should be allowed to stand unopposed against a private citizen. When in doubt consult the Founders' wisdom; they knew best. An individual's money and liberty are best protected, they said, when public power is checked-challenged and opposed-by private interest.

Learn more about this author, Paul Larusch.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Evaluating the current reputation of lawyers?
We want to hear your view. Write now!