 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Gosnell10/24/2005
Submitted June 24, 2005
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
In this judicial disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent pursuant to Rule 21, RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR. In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of a confidential admonition, public reprimand, or definite suspension not to exceed sixty (60) days pursuant to Rule 7, RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR. The facts as set forth in the Agreement are as follows.
FACTS
I.
At approximately 9:15 p.m. on November 8, 2003, Joseph S. Mendelsohn, a Charleston Municipal Court Judge, was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in Mount Pleasant. Judge Mendelsohn was also charged with having an open container in his vehicle in violation of South Carolina Code Ann. § 61-6-4020 (Supp. 2004).
South Carolina Code Ann. § 22-5-530 (Supp. 2004) provides that a person charged with a magistrate or municipal court offense may deposit a sum of money not to exceed the maximum fine with the magistrate, municipal judge, jail, or detention center in lieu of entering into a recognizance. This provision is applicable, however, only in those jurisdictions which adopt the procedure. The City of Charleston and the Charleston County Sheriff's' Department, which operates the Charleston County Detention Facility, use this procedure for DUI cases. As of November 2003, Mount Pleasant had not adopted this procedure.
Judge Mendelsohn was transported to the Mount Pleasant Police Department for paperwork and administration of a Datamaster test. While there, Judge Mendelsohn learned that, under procedures established by the Mount Pleasant Chief Municipal Judge, the bond for DUI was $1,002.00, but that bond could not be posted at that time. Instead, under the established procedures, Judge Mendelsohn would be transferred to the Charleston County Detention Facility where he would remain until a bond hearing could be held the next morning at approximately 8:00 a.m.
Judge Mendelsohn knew the Mount Pleasant procedure was not the same procedure used in Charleston for DUI cases. He questioned the arresting officer, a sergeant, and a lieutenant about the procedure.
Judge Mendelsohn telephoned a Mount Pleasant municipal judge. After the municipal judge discussed the bond policy with the police sergeant, he explained the policy to Judge Mendelsohn.
Thereafter, Judge Mendelsohn telephoned respondent, a Charleston County Magistrate. Respondent, who was familiar with the procedure used in Charleston, asked the lieutenant why Judge Mendelsohn could not be released. After the lieutenant explained Mount Pleasant's bond procedure, respondent remarked that he would go to the bond court and conduct a bond hearing for Judge Mendelsohn that night. Respondent asked that Judge Mendelsohn be brought directly to bond court rather than first being booked into the detention center. The lieutenant refused to bypass the standard booking procedure, stating respondent would be booked like any defendant. The lieutenant then advised the arresting officer that respondent would be at the Charleston County Detention Center to conduct a bond hearing.
Respondent telephoned the Summary Court Director to inquire whether she could arrange for staff to meet him at the detention center to hold a bond hearing. During the conversation, respondent and the Summary Court Director discussed that if a bond hearing was held at other than normal operating hours, respondent would be required to hold a bond hearing for all incarcerated defendants. Respondent elected not to call in staff to hold bo
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|