As reported by The Associated Press, Officer Michael Petrillo had issued a ticket to Kathleen Savolt, who happened to also be the mayor of the town, Mamaroneck, NY. The ticket was for using her cell phone while driving. Savolt appealed the ticket, arguing that the incoming call was an emergency, and that she was not in an area where she could safely pull over. The presiding judge agreed, dismissing the ticket on September 15.
Officer Petrillo, however, had other ideas. That night, he rang Savolt’s door and issued her a second ticket for the same infraction. He stated to Savolt, “I think the ticket was unfairly dismissed, so I’m issuing a duplicate ticket.”
This is, by any standard, a gross abuse of Officer Petrillo’s authority. Police officer’s are given power to issue citations and make arrests, and then it falls to the courts to decide whether these citations and arrests were valid. The parties will always be the defendant, and the state, who will either be a prosecutor or the issuing police officer, depending on the infraction and local rules. If the court reaches a decision that either party does not like, the party’s recourse is to appeal this decision. The state, or its agents, may NOT simply begin the process anew by issuing a new citation or arresting the defendant again.
The implications of Officer Petrillo’s actions are incredibly far reaching. If this action is deemed ok, you could just be arrested again any time you are acquitted. Sounds like something out of the iron curtain or a Kafka novel. In fact, such a system is so grossly a violation of any common notion of civil rights that there is specifically a provision in the Constitution against such “double jeopardy” (being charged for the same crime in the same forum more than once).
The second ticket will definitely be thrown out, but I’m curious if the Mayor will pursue any other legal action against Officer Petrillo or the city for what is a violation of her rights.
on November 27, 2008 at 12:42 am Richard C. wrote:
In cases where you’re acquitted though if new evidence comes up then sometimes they bring people back to trial. Possibly a similar argument here? Not that I know any details…
If the officer was smarter he should have waited near her office or home since she is bound to be on the phone again…
on November 27, 2008 at 4:07 am Chris wrote:
^Totally missing the point.
on November 28, 2008 at 5:58 pm Noah wrote:
No, definitely NOT missing the point at all. Richard, you’re not wrong, but I suspect you are reading into the case a little too much. If indeed there was evidence that was not brought to light at trial, then yes, a new trial might be ordered. However, I think that this usually would only apply if if a defendant is convicted, not if they were acquitted. My reasoning being that if you were acquitted, and the state could come back with “new evidence,” then you would be facing the same charge in the same forum, and that would be double jeopardy which is impermissible. Exceptions might be made where a defendant acted in bad faith to conceal evidence.
All that said, I seriously doubt that any new evidence came to light in this case. There really shouldn’t be much of any evidence when issuing such a basic traffic ticket - cop says you did X, you say “no I didn’t” or “yes I did, please excuse my conduct.” In this case, it seems that the latter scenario is what occurred. Either way, it seems really suspect that an officer would magically uncover new evidence the day his ticket is dismissed.
So, while it could be the case that there is new evidence, the facts in the article seem to indicate otherwise.
on December 4, 2008 at 12:43 pm Chris wrote:
Richard, sorry for my hasty response.
My disagreement stems from the fact that you mean to suggest a way in which the police officer could make a matter of law into a personal crusade. Presumably everything in this case happened in accordance with normal legal process: she appeared to be violating the law, the officer cited her, and it was reversed in court — end of story. This should not expose her to additional scrutiny or have any bearing on how she is treated in the future. ANY personal bias on the part of a police officer is essentially abuse of power; using state-granted authority in the pursuit of a personal vendetta is unethical and blatantly inappropriate.
Encouraging the police to stalk people they think are likely to do something wrong is a miscarriage of justice; the result is finding fault wherever they choose to look, not as fault naturally occurs.
on December 15, 2008 at 5:28 pm Anon wrote:
Officer Petrillo should be fired or reassigned and the ticket should be dropped before the court date. As much as I hate cell phone driving issuing a duplicate ticket is a gross violation of police procedure.
I have heard of cases whereby restraining orders were issued to protect people from police officers abusing their powers of authority and targeting individuals maliciously.
One would speculate that perhaps a civil case could be made against the Police Department if the harassment would continue.