 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Charleston Municipal Court Judge Mendelsohn10/24/2005
Submitted July 6, 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 letter of caution, admonition, or public reprimand pursuant to Rule 7(b), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR. The facts as set forth in the Agreement are as follows.
FACTS
Respondent is a municipal court judge for the City of Charleston. At approximately 9:15 p.m. on November 8, 2003, respondent was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in Mount Pleasant. Respondent was also charged with having an open container in his vehicle in violation of South Carolina Code Ann. § 61-6-4020 (Supp. 2004).
Respondent was transported to the Mount Pleasant Police Department for paperwork and administration of a Datamaster test. While there, respondent 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.
Respondent knew the Mount Pleasant procedure was not the same as the procedure used in Charleston. In Charleston, an arrestee can post the preset bond and be released without having to wait for a bond hearing. Respondent believed the Mount Pleasant procedure was illegal and questioned the arresting officer, sergeant, and a lieutenant.
Respondent was allowed to use the telephone. He called a Mount Pleasant municipal judge, again questioned the city's procedure, and asked the judge to speak with the sergeant about the bond policy. After speaking with the sergeant, the Mount Pleasant judge explained the policy to respondent.
After first attempting to telephone another Charleston County magistrate, respondent contacted Charleston County Magistrate James B. Gosnell, Jr. Magistrate Gosnell was unfamiliar with the Mount Pleasant bond procedure.
Magistrate Gosnell asked the Mount Pleasant lieutenant why respondent could not be released. After the lieutenant explained the procedure, Magistrate Gosnell remarked that he would go to the bond court and conduct a bond hearing for respondent that night. Magistrate Gosnell asked that respondent 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 other defendant. The lieutenant then advised the arresting officer that Magistrate Gosnell would be at the Charleston County Detention Center to conduct a bond hearing.
Magistrate Gosnell met the arresting officer and respondent at the detention center. At some point, Magistrate Gosnell took possession of the ticket, placed a "bond hearing" stamp on the back, and entered the amount of $1,002.00. Magistrate Gosnell communicated his setting of the bond to the Mount Pleasant Chief Judge and asked the judge to indicate his approval of the bond. The Mount Pleasant Chief Judge called the Charleston County Detention Center and was advised that officers were in possession of a valid bond set by Magistrate Gosnell. The Mount Pleasant Chief Judge told the officers that, since a bond had been set, the bond procedure he had established did not apply. Respondent was released from the Charleston County Detention Center at approximately 2:
Page 1 2 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|