Subject Matter Jurisdiction: How I Won My Traffic Ticket Case
 

By Tona Monroe-Ball, NMA Tennessee Activist
 

While traveling on the interstate during a rainy, humid night in July of last year, I received a speeding ticket for 70 MPH in a 55 MPH zone.

Tennessee state law establishes an interstate maximum speed limit of 70 MPH unless a traffic engineering study demonstrates the need for a lower speed limit and on the stretch of interstate where I was ticketed it’s difficult to find even one car that travels 55 MPH or less.  Knowing this, I decided to fight the ticket in court.

Naturally there was no study supporting the arbitrary speed limit, but the Municipal Court Judge muted me every time I opened my mouth in the short ten minute trial and I was found guilty.

I appealed my conviction to Circuit Court, for a trial de novo (a new trial), because the speed limit was illegally posted.  The Circuit Court is a court of record with rules that must be followed.  In Circuit Court my trial took one hour and 41 minutes. 

First I demonstrated to the Court that the radar reading for my citation couldn’t be relied upon because the radar manual states humidity of 90 percent in its specification limitations. It was raining when my citation was issued, and humidity is typically greater than 90 percent during rain.

Then I showed the Judge TCA Code 55-8-153 that requires a traffic engineering study to lower the speed limit from 70 on the interstate. Unfortunately, the Judge didn’t care what the state law said the speed limit should be, or what the radar manual said. 

During my presentation, it was clear through comments made by the Judge that he was irritated at me, and that he was going to rule against me. He lectured me about getting an attorney and that told me I was wasting the Court’s time, because people had serious issues that needed to be heard. 

However, I pressed on because I knew that the City attorney had made one fatal flaw during her case. She forgot about Rule 202 in the Tennessee Rules of Evidence.

Rule 202 states that duly enacted ordinances of municipalities require that a certified copy of any city ordinance be entered into the record as evidence during a City’s presentation.  In other words, a City must prove a City ordinance upon appeal to Circuit court, and the City attorney failed to enter the ordinance into evidence.

The Judge proceeded to rule against me, but I interrupted him and asked him if I could say one more thing.  He was irritated at me, but he obliged because I was without counsel. I asked if the Plaintiff had rested its case, and the Judge sharply replied, “I thought we determined that over an hour ago.” 

Due to the excitement of knowing that victory was mine, I fumbled around, unable to find the Rule number in my case paper work. I decided that I should just proceed without it before the Judge stopped me. I quickly made an oral motion for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the City failed to enter a certified copy of the ordinance into the record. 

When a City is germane to a case, it must prove the ordinance, which it hadn’t done.  Subject matter jurisdiction can not be waived; therefore, my case had to be dismissed. After initial shock that an in propria persona litigant was smart enough to know this, the Judge said, “for that reason and that reason alone the prosecution against this defendant will be dismissed at the cost of the City.” 

As my case demonstrated, it’s important to read the Court rules when you’re challenging a traffic ticket. Rules often mean more than laws to Judges. 

Following my victory in court, the City Judge was reprimanded by the Court of the Judiciary, and made to issue an apology to me for his rude comments in City Court.
 

Letter of apology from the City Traffic Court Judge
Please note that this is not the same Judge that is on the audio, because the audio is from the appeal to Circuit Court after the City Judge convicted me.

Dear Ms. Monroe-Ball:

 

    This letter is written to apologize for the unfortunate experience you had before the Municipal Court for Knoxville, Tennessee, in September, 2007.  I was sitting as Special Judge that day, and I deeply regret any misunderstanding of the process, or resentment for any unnecessary remark that I made during the presentation of your case.

 

    Let me begin my review of this unfortunate incident with my remarks made at my summation, after evidence had been presented in the case.  I was asked by Municipal Court to rule on the merits of your case, and not comment on the presentation.  That is true whether you are represented by an attorney or not.  There simply was no reason for me to begin my remarks with that statement, and it added nothing to the decision that had to be made.  For that remark, I am truly sorry.

 

    While I believe that I was technically correct in ruling on the points that you made in your presentation of the case, I should have taken time to explain more clearly to you what I was doing.  First, the office presented his evidence, and answered, in response to a question from me, that the calibration of the detection equipment was working properly that day.  When you asked on your examination of the officer whether the equipment was in working order, I stopped you, and thought I made an adequate explanation of the reason for doing so.  One a Court settles, in the mind of the Judge, that a point is made, such as this technical question concerning calibration, it is not proper for anyone to continue to address that point.  I should have explained that more clearly to you.

 

    The other points that you attempted to make, the construction of the highway and the speed limit itself, are issues that are well beyond the ability of the Municipal Court to decide.  Speed limits are set by the City of Knoxville, in coordination with the State of Tennessee and, ultimately, the Federal Government where it concerns an interstate highway.  Likewise, the engineering that goes into the construction of the highway is mandated by the agencies, Federal and State, that are responsible for building it.

 

    While I made the right technical decision in ruling against you on these points, I should have made sure that you understood why I made those rulings, and given you and opportunity to respond to those rulings.  I believed that I did during the presentation of your case, and my review of your brief.  However, it is apparent in looking back at the incident that I should have done a better job.

 

    Than you for this opportunity to address the hearing that was held last September.  I apologize for any discourtesy that was extended to you, and for any negative impression that you had of the Municipal Court as a result of my actions on the bench.  I appreciate the opportunity to make this statement to you, and hope that you will accept my apology.

 

                    Very truly yours,

                    John W. Routh