Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published December 5, 2001
Your article of Nov. 30 (Pinellas judges get an edge in traffic court) and the editorial based on that article on Dec. 3 (Judges' special treatment), regarding how two traffic citations Judge Paul Levine received were handled, were off the mark. I am the attorney who appeared in court on Judge Levine's behalf on one of these citations. Your reporter indicated that he was unable to reach me for comment. I would like to do so now.
Your reporter's efforts at researching this story are far below the St. Petersburg Times' standards in three important respects.
Your reporter indicated that judges, as well as members of the public, receive citations, and I assume he researched this issue in order to find that Judge Levine had, in fact, received two speeding tickets. What he failed to note, and what I feel is extremely important here, is that most judges really don't receive traffic citations. The reason for this is the same reason that police officers, probation officers and members of other state law enforcement organizations don't receive traffic citations. Judges and all law enforcement officers in the state of Florida are issued credentials that include badges. When these officials are stopped for minor traffic infractions and their positions become known to the officer making the stop, the results are predictable.
It did not seem to be important to your reporter or your editorial writer that Judge Levine did not show a badge or credentials nor did he request any special treatment from the officer who stopped him. I believe that this is an extremely important fact because if Judge Levine chose to abuse his position or his authority, it would have been a simple matter to identify himself as a judge to the police officer issuing the citation.
Next, your reporter stated that a motion to suppress the radar reading in this case was filed by me on behalf of Judge Levine. At the time that I filed this motion, it was well-conceived and had an excellent chance of success. When I advised Judge Levine that I had filed this motion on his behalf, he instructed me to withdraw the motion and enter a plea of no contest, as he was guilty and wanted to simply pay the fine. He did not believe that the appearance of a county court judge contesting a speeding ticket would be positive. Based on Judge Levine's specific request, I withdrew the motion to suppress and entered a no-contest plea on his behalf. He was fined and adjudication of guilt was withheld, based on his clean driving record.
Finally, I believe that your reporter, as well as your editorial writers, are incorrect in assuming that there is some type of an ethical violation on Judge Levine's behalf in regard to the handling of these matters. My understanding of the canons of judicial conduct is that a judge may not receive anything of value or benefit. As the result that Judge Levine received was exactly the same result that any citizen with a driving record comparable to his would have received and does receive on a daily basis in traffic court in Pinellas County, Judge Levine received no benefit whatsoever, other than perhaps avoiding a drive to traffic court.
For years, Judge Paul Levine has worked fairly, honestly and with integrity on behalf of the citizens of Pinellas County, and to characterize his integrity in the light that you have in this article is simply wrong.
-- Ronnie G. Crider, Bauer, Crider, Pellegrino & Parry, Clearwater
Re: Judges' special treatment, Dec. 3.
This editorial was critical of two area lawyers who defended County Court Judge Paul Levine for two speeding tickets. Driving points were withheld from his driving record and he paid a fine. Neither lawyer charged for his help and assistance.
I find nothing improper about a local judge asking a local lawyer to represent him in a minor matter. The alternative choices would have either been for the judge to hire out-of-town counsel (an expensive proposition for a traffic ticket) or else to represent himself in court before a fellow judge (this would be a no-win situation for both judges).
It was quoted in a previous article concerning the matter that one lawyer's bill would have been from $20-$35 (Pinellas judges get an edge in traffic court, Nov. 30). Not sending a bill under those circumstances is understandable. The withholding of the points from the driver's record is not unusual for a motorist with an otherwise good driving record.
Judge Paul Levine is a hardworking, evenhanded and fair judge who does not play favorites. To suggest to the contrary in your editorial is misleading. He is beholden to no lawyer who practices before him.
-- Bjorn E. Brunvand, president, Pinellas County Trial Lawyers, Association, Clearwater
Re: Judges' special treatment, Dec. 3.
Thank you for the editorial. When I read the Nov. 30 news article, I could not help but chuckle. Indeed, the rules apply for everyone else but the judges. But Judge Paul Levine's answer was so appalling. Obviously, he is so full of himself that he does not get it. The article said that he received $20 to $35 worth of work. Well I would be hard pressed to find an attorney in this county to represent me in court for that little money.
I hope the Times keeps us informed as to the follow-up on this story. We don't need judges like Levine who have two sets of rules, one for himself and friends and one for the others. It is abuse of power. Thank you for an excellent editorial.
-- Anne Ryan, St. Petersburg
Re: Teachers' insurance a boondoggle, editorial, Dec. 1.
Thank you for your editorial regarding the teachers' liability insurance. My floor amendment would have appropriated $1.2-million from this controversial program to restore funding for services for the deaf, blind, autistic and those with developmental disabilities.
Currently, teachers can obtain this insurance through their union or for a minimal fee on their homeowners' insurance. In a perfect world, state-funded liability insurance for all teachers would be acceptable. However, facing a budget crisis, I felt this money could be better used to assist families with special needs rather than on a program that, at best, would be described as a luxury.
While my amendment was not passed, I would like to thank local Rep. Ken Littlefield, R-Dade City, for his co-sponsorship, and Reps. Larry Crow, R-Palm Harbor, Kim Berfield, R-Clearwater, and Frank Peterman, D-St. Petersburg, for their favorable votes.
-- Charlie Justice, representative, 53rd House District,, St. Petersburg
Re: Florida budget cuts.
The "non-voters" of Florida are surely making the rest of us pay more and lose, pay more and lose!
Bad politicians are voted into office by good people who don't vote.
While Gov. Jeb Bush and the state House and Senate leaders continue to cater to special (and their own) interests, Florida slides further and further into financial chaos.
These leaders seem proud of their budget agreement: to cut monies to education, health care and social services, criminal justice, public safety and transportation. Cuts such as these do not address the benefits citizens of any well run state would expect.
These taxpayer-paid politicians gleefully cut the most basic and necessary services, then declare it a victory. I declare it pathetic.
-- Diana H. Davis, Largo
When Jeb Bush, Tom Feeny and the rest of those special interest employees in Tallahassee finish making Florida's economy and education system less than those of a Third World country, will we be eligible for foreign aid? And if we are, to whom do we apply? The United States, the United Nations or the World Bank?
-- Bob Wooten Sr., Palmetto
Re: Weighing budget-balancing methods.
It is unfortunate for most Floridians that the thinking of Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Orszag, as expressed in their Dec. 3 column, is not present in this state's government.
It is not surprising that this state's budget-balancing package heavily hits education and health care, two areas that one could say should be of utmost concern to most Floridians.
Until most Floridians use the ballot box, their only recourse, this thinking by their representative government shall have irreparable consequences.
-- Russell Lee Johnson, St. Petersburg
As a professor in the College of Education at the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg, I cannot let one of Rep. Jerry Melvin's quotes go unchallenged.
Robert Friedman's Nov. 28 editorial notebook cited him as saying: "There's absolutely no study anywhere in the nation . . . that says the class size makes any difference in student achievement." In fact, some studies have found that smaller classes resulted in higher student achievement. Consider a study published in the American Educational Research Journal (1990, pp 557-577) by Finn and Achilles that found that students in smaller classes (especially minority students) showed higher achievement in reading and mathematics than students in larger classes.
I do not personally research class size and don't consider myself an expert in that area. However, when the chairman of the House committee that oversees state education policy says that "there's absolutely no study anywhere," he is simply incorrect.
-- Brett Jones, St. Petersburg
Re: Bill would prohibit local cell phone regulation, Nov. 29.
Whether you drive or simply read the papers, it is obvious that Pinellas County desperately needs more traffic control. There are high numbers of auto accidents, bike accidents and pedestrian accidents. And St. Petersburg has the dubious distinction of being the fourth worst city in America for red-light running and resulting accidents.
And yet it is St. Petersburg's own Florida senator, Republican Jim Sebesta, who is sponsoring a bill that would tend to keep the highways a little bit more unsafe by prohibiting any local community from nixing hand-held cell phone conversations in moving vehicles as New York and Miami have done.
A federal distraction study found cell phones -- among other causes -- resulted in impaired driving. Florida has added cell phone use to causes state troopers check in accidents. Polls on the Internet show drivers overwhelmingly in favor of banning conversations with hand-held cell phones (as opposed to hands-free models). Here in Pinellas we have had at least two serious accidents, one involving a fatality. Nationally, the toll runs 4,000-8,000 crashes a year involving cell phones, according to AAA. Even cell phone companies urge users not to engage in conversations in a moving car as a safety measure.
But Sebesta terms such a ban as "ludicrous" and claims there is no support for a statewide law. If that is true, then why the bill? Does he feel some local politicians might go off the deep end and make driving in Pinellas a little bit safer by requiring both hands on the wheel?
-- John Royse, St. Petersburg
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.