By early 1998, Rhode Island's statewide traffic court, known as the Administrative Adjudication Court (AAC), part of the R.I. unified court system, was in crisis. The general public had lost confidence in the Court; the newspapers wrote articles daily criticizing the judges and employees of the Court.

There was an accusation of misappropriation of funds. The backlog of cases was extensive, not having been heard for years. Long lines of motorists/violators were in attendance in Court seeking case information, waiting hours to receive service. The telephone system was obsolete, not capable of handling informational calls.

As a result, public pressure was exerted on the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government to react to the perceived conditions. During the 1998 session of the legislature, a bill was passed that indicated the traffic court would be abolished and that, in the interim, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be granted plenary powers over the traffic court.. After discussions and negotiations with the legislature and the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge of the District Court agreed to assume supervisory responsibility for the Court. By a Supreme Court Executive Order issued on February 11, 1999, Chief Judge DeRobbio and District Court Magistrate/Administrator Joseph P. Ippolito, along with Chief Clerk Kevin Spina, were assigned authority for the daily operation of the Administrative Adjudication Court as the designees of the Chief Justice. Immediately, they began to formulate plans for the reform of this troubled Court.

A study of the traffic court's history, from its origins in the legislation authorizing the Court, and its subsequent practices and procedures, revealed many reasons for its failure. Prior to 1975, all traffic offenses in Rhode Island, except parking, were criminal violations (misdemeanors or felonies) and were heard by the Rhode Island District Court. With the establishment of the Administrative Adjudication Division (AAD) within the Department of Transportation, most traffic offenses were decriminalized and placed under the jurisdiction of this quasi judicial body. Those that were not decriminalized continued to be within the jurisdiction of the District Court - including driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, reckless driving, driving without a valid license, and leaving the scene of an accident. The legislation establishing the Administrative Adjudication Division was framed as an administrative agency's practices and procedure.

In 1992 the AAD was reconfigured as the Administrative Adjudication Court (AAC). The AAC was responsible for hearing most traffic cases, for distributing and controlling traffic summonses, for operating driver retraining schools, and for maintaining accurate driver accident and violation records. The AAC heard appeals from the Division of Motor Vehicles and the Municipal Courts. However, while the legislation which created the AAC placed it within the judicial department, it was still being operated as a quasi-administrative agency.

Thus, it was necessary for the District Court team to redesign a Court that would not only be a branch of the judiciary in name and in law, but to be judicial in its structure and procedures. One important structural change had been accomplished in the 1998 law, which was that the administrative functions of Operator Control and Driver Retraining had been returned to the Registry of Motor Vehicles, since their inclusion in the AAC had raised questions concerning the principle of separation of powers. Procedurally, in order to re-establish credibility with the citizenry, with the appearance of fairness, the new court would have to operate, protecting the due process rights of the accused motorists.

The Chief Judge formulated a plan designed to meet these goals; it was a plan which anticipated desired legislative enactments. On July 1, 1999 the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal was created by law; while still a separate component of the judicial department, it was placed under the supervision of the Chief Judge of the District Court. Since the establishment of a new Traffic Tribunal, many changes have been implemented. It was vital that any design plan that was formulated, consider the basic operation of the court, from the issuance of summonses to the orderly disposition of the case.

In order to expedite the disposition of cases, the Traffic Tribunal instituted a procedure that requires the police officer issuing a summons to designate a date certain for an arraignment, with the violating motorist acknowledging the receipt of the summons by signing the summons. This system eliminated the necessity of sending notices to motorists for court dates and/or for trial after the first appearance (many notices being returned marked "addressee moved - no forwarding address"). The saving in the cost of postage and in personnel for preparing and mailing notices was great.

The court required each department issuing summonses designate a prosecution officer to be present in Court on arraignment day to prosecute violations. At the arraignment, those cases not disposed of are assigned to trial on a date certain set in court, taking into consideration the availability of witnesses. All notices are signed by the motorist, acknowledging the trial date. There also has been implemented a no continuance policy. In order to operate as a court, new Rules of Procedure were promulgated by the Chief Judge of the District Court under his statutory powers, and approved by the Supreme Court.

To insure that a motorist understands the Traffic Tribunal's procedures, a pamphlet was developed that is given to each motorist upon being issued a summons by an officer. To promote a user-friendly atmosphere within the Court, the physical structure of the courthouse was changed so that motorists could be serviced courteously and expeditiously. A new telephone service was installed, and an information center established to answer questions and to otherwise assist motorists. A clerk's office was established for the filing of documents, motions and appeals.

Because the appeals calendar was bogged down with motions to vacate default judgments, a motion calendar has been established to hear motions on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. The three judge appeals panel, established by law, hears cases on Wednesday afternoons on a weekly basis. All appeals from the Traffic Tribunal are heard in the District Court.

A collections courtroom was established, with all active tickets housed in one office. The Court established a pay-by-credit card and debit card system, without any costs to the State. The court also was given authority to enforce its own judgments. A new accounting procedure was established to insure accountability to the citizens of the State.

The personnel of the Traffic Tribunal was reorganized pursuant to the new legislation passed, resulting in the establishment of a system of clerks, assistant clerks, data entry aides, etc., the reorganization also resulted in the consolidation of two unions into one union representing all employees.

In February, 1999 there was a backlog of approximately 58,000 cases, many of them dating back more than five years. Through the efforts of the four judges (who were carried over) and three newly appointed magistrates, the Traffic Tribunal is now current and virtually free of a backlog, with the exception of those matters in the area of collections, in which the law granted the Court the right to enforce its own judgments. The new law also granted the Chief Judge supervisory authority over the procedures followed in traffic cases in the Municipal Court; when said courts are hearing traffic cases pursuant to their concurrent jurisdiction.

Where there was once despair, now there is hope and confidence in the judicial system. Where long lines of motorists seeking assistance waiting hours, now immediate attention and service is available. Where there was once a backlog of cases and years to be reached and disposed, it now takes weeks. Where employees were required to work long

hours of overtime, now employees work a normal and regular work day. Where the Court lacked morale, the employees now are upbeat with great spirit and commitment to the State.

The procedures employed at the Tribunal have resulted in approximately $3 million in savings to the municipal and state police departments by the reduction of overtime for court appearances. However, there remains a need for a failure to appear arrest law to establish credibility in the traffic law enforcement system.

There has been a remarkable transformation in Rhode Island's traffic court. The Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal has credibility and it operates efficiently, professionally and is user-friendly. A once troubled Court is now a model Court.